p6Rmalif6« 

pH8^ 



E 785 
.n66 
Copy 1 



The New Administration 



An Address Delivered Before the 

Women's Democratic Association of Minnesota, 

May 5, 1921 



By 
DAVID HUNTER MILLER 






RECEDED 



THE NEW ADMINISTRATION. 

An Address Delivered Before the Women's Democratic 
Association of Minnesota, May 5, 1921 

BY DAVID HUNTER MILLER. 

It is not easy for me to express the pleasure which I feel 
in speaking to this assemblage; for that pleasure comes not 
only from the satisfaction which one must always have in 
addressing an audience of brilUance and distinction, but 
from that deeper feeling of being among friends and sympa- 
thizers, rather than with critics and Republicans, of being 
among those whom I know in advance will greet at least 
with kindly interest, the utterances of a fallow Democrat. ^ / 

My topic is the new administration; and I suppose some 
one will ask how is it possible to pass judgment on an ad- 
ministration which has been in office only two months and 
will say that that is too short a period in which to prove suc- 
cess; well, I answer, I am not going to pass any judgment, all 
I am intending to do is to make a few comments; the country 
will have an opportunity to pass judgment later; and so far 
as the period of two months is concerned, I admit that such 
a period is not long enough to prove success; but I also 
recall that two months has often been found sufficient to 
demonstrate that success is not deserved. 

The difference between Democratic and Republican poli- 
cies is only in part in things done or attempted; it is a com- 
mon saying that in many matters a Republican administra- 
tion does just what a Democratic administration would do, 
and vice versa; now there is more or less truth in that idea; 
but there is a vital, a fundamental difference that some- 
times escapes us, and that difference is found in the attitude 



of mind, the point of view, the inspiration or motive for 
doing things. 

Now I call this a vital difference because it is the most 
important distinction to be taken in all things human. The 
man who is honest because he thinks it right is as far apart 
as the poles asunder from the man who is honest merely 
because he thinks it wise. 

Look at the attitude of the two parties in foreign affairs. 
The attitude of the Republican party in foreign affairs is 
based on politics and that of the Democratic party on states- 
manship. Now I do not make that statement as a mere as- 
sertion, for I expect to prove it. 

Take the case of the Colombian treaty, negotiated in 
1914 by a Democratic administration; it provided for the 
payment to Colombia of twenty-five million dollars on ac- 
count of the separation of Panama from Colombia in 1903, 
resulting in the building of the Panama Canal; the United 
States policy behind that treaty was that for the sake of 
fairness and of our relations with Latin-America in gen- 
eral and with Colombia in particular, that payment should 
be made and accordingly that arguments as to the tech- 
nical correctness or not of the acts of President Roosevelt's 
administration were immaterial. 

When that treaty was submitted to the Senate, it was 
assailed with abuse and invective in almost every form of 
Repubhcan language that imagination could describe. Sen- 
ator Lodge in liis report to the Senate in 1917 referred to 
the payment of twenty-five million dollars under the treaty 
as "a blackmail demand" and as "a degradation to which 
the United States should never submit." 

And yet last month under the leadership of Senator Lodge, 
a Republican Senate consented to the treaty and even voted 
down an amendment, which would have declared that it 



was not the intent of the treaty to admit any wrong on our 
part in 1903. 

Could there be a clearer case of a purely political at- 
titude toward a foreign policy? An important treaty is 
denounced under the pretext of opposition to its provisions 
but really because of its authorship and then, when the 
sponsor of the treaty goes out of office, the Republican 
administration lu'ges and accepts in toto that treaty and 
that policy of the hated statesman, Woodrow Wilson. 

Moreover, that is not the only Democratic policy taken 
over bodily by the present administration. Look at the case 
of the island of Yap. The former administration con- 
sistently sought to have that island made available for the 
benefit of the cable communications of the Pacific. I re- 
call that President Wilson mentioned it in Paris as early as 
January, 1919, and he continued his efforts throughout his 
term of office. 

It must be remembered that any present rights in the 
island of Yap must be based on the Treaty of Versailles for 
it was that treaty that ended the sovereignty of Germany 
over the island. 

Well, the previous administration made various represen- 
tations and wrote various notes on the question to the 
League of Nations and to the Principal Allied Powers; this 
administration has merely continued the series; naturally 
we have no objection to this any more than we have any 
objections to the adoption by this administration of the 
poficy of the former administration in regard to oil rights 
in Mesopotamia. 

Of course we welcome this most perfect and conclusive 
vindication of Democratic policy; actions speak louder than 
words, and even two months' history has sufficed to dis- 
prove many of the slanders of two years. 



Our objection is to the attitude of the administration even 
when it is adopting and pursuing the sound Democratic 
pohcy previously laid down; that diflference in inspiration 
and motive which I have mentioned is consistently ap- 
parent. 

In a note of the previous administration of November 
20th last, it was said: 

"the Government of the United States has consist- 
ently urged that it is of the utmost importance to the 
future peace of the world that alien territory, trans- 
ferred as a result of the war with the Central Powers, 
should be held and administered in such a way as to 
assure equal treatment to the commerce and to the 
citizens of all nations." 

A few days ago President Harding said to the fleet these 
words: 

"we do want that which is righteously our own, 
and, by the eternal, we mean to have tliat." 

Could there be a greater contrast, a greater difference in 
basic principle? 

There is no question anywhere of any rights of the United 
Slates being denied or withheld by any one; but suppose 
there was; let us imagine that there existed some doubt or 
difference between our country and another as to some 
claim of ours; do we have to say swaggeringly that by the 
eternal, thus and so must happen? What would we think 
of such an utterance of Mr. Lloyd-George or by some Jap- 
anese statesman, for example? 

Indeed, docs not such language rather call to mind some 
of the outgivings of a former European ruler, now happily 
removed from power? 

During the campaign. Senator Harding talked much 



about an international tribunal for the determination of 
our international rights and the international rights of 
others — does President Harding wish us to suppose that 
those were weasel words? 

Think of it for a moment; we are the richest and doubt- 
less the most powerful nation on the globe; leaving aside 
any question of morals or righteousness, and taking purely 
a materialistic point of view, our greatest ultimate interest 
is the promotion of justice internationally and the preserva- 
tion of peace. Is not a policy based on justice for all, on 
equality of opportunity, the policy which is most to our 
profit, the policy which will bring us the most benefit, 
rather than any blatant demand for advantages for our- 
selves ? 

Wholly without regard to any thought of idealism and 
simply from the calculation of self-interest, should we not 
remember that the influence of the United States never 
reached so great a height, so supreme a position as it did 
after the armistice under the unselfish Democratic policy 
of the Wilson administration? 

Then we were listened to simply because we spoke; and 
surely no one will challenge the assertion that such is not 
the case now. 

I could go on and show how the position of the former 
administration has been vindicated in other matters of for- 
eign policy such as the matter of reparations for instance; 
after these two years of ignorant or mahcious denunciation, 
the views of President Wilson and his advisers at the Con- 
ference of Paris have been demonstrated to be correct and 
the only progress that is being made by the present admin- 
istration or by any one else in tiie matter is along their 
lines. 

But I need not detail them all; let it suffice us that truth 
is on the march adown the road of time. 



6 



Now let us consider the political attitude of the Republi- 
can party and of the present administration toward the 
Treaty of Versailles. I am not speaking, of course, of in- 
dividual exceptions; I am speaking of the official adminis- 
tration and party attitude. 

In thinking of this (facstion, we shall be led astray if we 
leave out of sight for a moment the fundamental reason 
for the Repubhcan attitude, and that fundamental reason 
is this: the Democratic party was in power during the 
eight most important years of the world's history and the 
RepubUcans are never going to forgive history for that 
slight. 

After all the tumult and the shouting about the general 
pro\'isions of the treaty with Germany — I do not now refer 
to the Covenant of the l^eague of Nations, I shall come to 
that in a moment — it now appears that those general pro- 
visions were wise and proper and are to be adopted by the 
present administration. President Harding has intimated 
as much and even the shameful resolution of Senator Knox, 
after modification at the White House, provides that "the 
United States of America reserves for itself and its nationals 
all of the rights, powers, claims, privileges, indemnities, 
reparations or advantages wliich were stipulated" under 
the Treaty of Versailles. Of course, I suppose that there 
are still to be shed some more crocodile tears about the 
Japanese rights in Shantung by the successors in office of 
their Republican predecessors vxho congratulated Germany 
twenty years ago when Germany stole those rights from 
China. , 

None the less, the Treaty, it seems, is to be ratified; that 
document which it is hardly an exaggeration to say is the 
charter of the present political' system of Europe, came 
into being under the influence of the Democratic policy of 



the previous administration, and the party now in power 
finds itself both unable to change it, if it would, and also 
unwilling to change it if it were able. 

There remains only the matter of the League of Nations. 
Here the purpose of the administration is apparent, although 
the exact method by which it will attempt to carry out that 
purpose is not yet disclosed. Contrary to the wishes, the 
hopes and even the prayers of the Repubhcan party, the 
report of the death of tlie League of Nations, so many 
times announced, proves to have been greatly exaggerated. 
Not only is the League of Nations alive and doing well, but 
the present administration is under the painful necessity of 
dealing with the League in the matter of Yap and otherwise; 
so we no longer hear of the demise of the League, that 
campaign declaration which was amusingly coupled with 
the statement that the corpse remained an overawing super- 
government. 

We are now told that the League is rejected but in the 
same breath that the administration will make every effort 
for an Association of Nations which the United States 
should join. 

Of course the real Repubhcan trouble with the League of 
Nations is that it is the child of a Democratic brain. I am 
glad to observe, however, that it is intended to change its 
name back to Association of Nations, for that was Woodrow 
Wilson's original idea, as any one can see who takes the 
trouble to read the last of the Fourteen Points; not until 
Paris was Mr. Wilson persuaded to adopt the word League, 
which is, indeed, not so near an equivalent of the French 
title Societe as is the word Association. 

And with the change of name must doubtless come some 
changes of detail; we may expect to see very grave discus- 
sions as to the best way of taking out of the Covenant things 



8 



which it docs not contain and of exckiding from interna- 
tional concern various matters which no one but a Republi- 
can Senator could conjure up as bogies. 

The Republicans are really envious; they want the child; 
and with a diiferent name and with a little different cloth- 
ing, they hope that the author of its being will be forgotten, 
and that they will have the credit of paternity or at least 
credit for some paternal care. 

No one will begrudge them that real solace to a sterile 
brain; after all, if one cannot have an idea of one's own, the 
next best thing is to adopt a good idea of some one else; the 
Republican party has always cared more for power than 
for ideas, and the combination of Republican power and 
Democratic ideas is doubtless very attractive to the adminis- 
tration, for it includes all the advantages of thinking with- 
out involving the disagreeable necessity of mental effort. 

When we turn from foreign affairs to domestic matters, 
we naturally find for Republican policy the same basic at- 
titude of mind with its similar resulting incidents. 

To the eternal credit of the Democratic administration, 
the war was fought so far as the United States was con- 
cerned, without a single thought of poHtics or of anytliing 
connected with party. For the general in command of our 
forces was chosen a distinguished officer all of whose as- 
sociations were Republican; not a single request or recom- 
mendation made by General Persliing during the fighting 
was ever refused or disapproved by the Commander-in- 
Cliief ; no general ever had a freer hand; none was ever more 
tmsted, unless it be Foch, to whom President Wilson left it 
to write the terms of the German Armistice. 

A few weeks before March 4th, President Wilson sent to 
the Senate a list of nominations of major-generals in the 
Army, a list based wholly on merit. The Senate refused 



even to consider the names. Last month with one excep- 
tion, the same list is submitted and confirmed; and the ex- 
ception is that there was omitted the name of General 
Bundy, tlie author in France of the immortal phrase: 

"Retreat? Hell, No." 

and for General Bundy's name was substituted that of an 
officer who had the support of Republican Senators from 
New England. 

General Pershing appeared before the last Congress, 
which was Republican, and suggested an army program of 
one hundred and seventy-five thousand men; but General 
Pershing's vieAvs were approved by President Wilson so 
Congress would have none of them and the Army bill was 
vetoed. Now we see the present Secretary of War recom- 
mending to Congress exactly that same army program. 

Could anything be more childish, more stupidly partisan? 
I could give you instance after instance of the same sort, 
such as the three gentlemen in the Treasury Department 
nominated to be Assistant Secretaries of the Treasury, two 
at least of them I believe, being Republicans, whom the 
Senate refused to confirm until after March 4th had passed. 

However, there are more important domestic questions 
than these before the country. 

Last Fall the voters were told after some years of pros- 
perity such as the country had never before seen, that a Re- 
publican administration was necessary as an assurance of 
good business. 1 suppose the Repubhcans, or some of them 
at least, really believed it, for the belief in a sort of di\dne 
right of repubhcanism dies just about as hard in the re- 
actionary circles of Wall Street as the belief in the di\dne 
right of Kings did in the reactionary circles of royalty. 

In times past a vested assumption of prosperity was arro- 



10 



gated by the Republicans, perhaps because of their natural 
alliance with vested interests generally; but this time some- 
thing went wrong with the prediction; for now, according 
to the labor authorities, there are about five million men out 
of work in tliis country. 

The Administration proposes to correct this situation by 
various methods. 

In the first place, it is proposing to reduce the taxation on 
all individual incomes in excess of one hundred thousand 
dollars a year. I suppose the idea is that the matter of the 
income tax is one of indifference to a man out of a job as he, 
having no income, is relieved of the trouble of making any 
income tax return at all. 

In the next place, the Administration is seeking to increase 
our foreign trade. True, like the original Bourbons, having 
learned nothing from the past, the Republicans imagine that 
a tariff which it is hoped will prevent other countries from 
trading with us, will not be any obstacle to our trading 
with them. So they wdU first build a tariff wall and then 
leave the matter of foreign trade to Mr. Hoover. 

Now I have nothing against Mr. Hoover personally, quite 
the contrary. Mr. Hoover is one of the two really able men 
in the Cabinet; indeed, it would not be extravagant, though 
perhaps impolite, to say that he is one of the two really 
able men in the Administration. The only thing against Mr. 
Hoover is that he has fallen into bad company. His asso- 
ciates are not such as I would choose for him; and I fear 
that their influence is being felt, for I noticed the other day 
that Mr. Hoover's first step toward promoting our foreign 
trade is to be the establishment of twelve new bureaus in the 
Department of Commerce at an annual expense of say seven 
hundred thousand dollars. The estabhshment of new 
bureaus is so typically an instance of Republican domestic 



11 



policy that it would seem harsh to charge this to Mr. Hoover 
personally. I put it down rather to the influences that sur- 
round him; for after all, Mr. Hoover has been a Republican 
for only about a year back. 

I would be the last to contend that the Administration 
policy is fully stated or even developed. To the extent that 
it is not wholly drawn from Democratic sources, for such 
a question, for example, as the best method of turning out 
all the Democratic postmasters, who have passed civil serv- 
ice examinations, in order to make room for RepubUcans, 
thought is necessary, and the present Administration nat- 
urally requires time for thought. 

These are my comments and I promised you when I com- 
menced that I would not pass any judgment; but after all, 
is it so that two months is too short a time to form a fairly 
sound opinion of the new Administration? 

Now I do not want to talk too long and I shall try to avoid 
that danger; but I want to say a little about the duty of the 
Democratic party during these four years of opposition — 
and by four years I mean only four years. 

First of all, we must maintain that attitude of construc- 
tive statesmanship which we displayed during eight years of 
office; for during that period the Democratic party has a 
record of achievement which is unequalled in history. 
Every one who took any part in it ought to be proud of 
having Uved at such a time. 

I am not going to review that record; I shall mention the 
P'ederal Reserve Act alone; there is enough achievement in 
that without mentioning anything else. That law was writ- 
ten and passed as a Democratic policy and it was enacted 
in the face of the Repubhcan opposition and against the 
protest of the Wall Street bankers generally. 

Every one knows that without that statute we could not 



12 



have gone through this period of deflation without a violent 
panic and with it the country passed through the necessary 
linancial changes without serious difficulty. 

Neither am I going to claim as part of that party record 
the conduct of the war; the Democratic party is entitled to 
credit for the fact that it conducted the war without regard 
to party, but that is all; let us look back at the war wholly 
from the plane of patriotism and not at all of party, what- 
ever may be the attitude of any one else. 

We have seen the war made use of as a campaign argu- 
ment of the basest type; some have even not hesitated to 
assail our army and our navy for the sake of votes; sums 
of money that were spent to save American lives have been 
criticized by small or vicious minds as extravagant; but 
surely the correct attitude of the Democratic party should 
not be changed by reason of that unworthy attitude of 
others. 

Indeed, it seems to me that that spirit should be the key- 
note of the policy of the Democratic party while out of 
power; in other words, that we should treat every question 
that arises from a constructive and not from a political 
standpoint, even when we are convinced that the reasons for 
the Administration attitude are wholly political. 

Let me be a httle specific in this matter; the Administra- 
tion is undoubtedly going to propose a scheme of tax reduc- 
tion or revision; now my own view is that the burdens of 
taxation should be lessened where they now weigh on those 
of small or moderate means; if I am right as to that, the 
Democratic duty would certainly be to support any proposal 
along these Mncs, no matter what its source was. Perhaps 
it is a little fanciful to suppose that any such proposal 
might come from the present Administration, but I take 
an extreme case as an illustration. 



13 



Even more strongly do I feel that such should be our atti- 
tude in foreign affairs. The fact that the official Republican 
attitude toward the gravest international situation which 
the world ever saw has been one to which every American 
win look back with shame a few years from now, is the 
strongest of reasons why the Democratic party should not 
descend even part way to such a level. 

It is especially appropriate that I should press this view 
on such an audience as this; for the goal of any decent 
foreign policy of any people should be the preservation of 
world peace; the Democratic party has made that ideal a 
part of the fabric of its being; and if that ideal does not win 
the approval and support of you women of this country, of 
the women of the world, we must, indeed, despair. 

Working with the whole hearted cooperation and support 
of many eminent Republicans, Woodrow Wilson and his 
associates prepared and offered to the world the noblest 
plan for tlie preservation of world peace that the world 
has ever seen; and that plan was examined and debated 
by its political critics from a point of view as elevated as 
that from which they would have approached a River and 
Harbor bill. 

Let it never be said of the Democratic party that its de- 
votion to the cause of peace and justice the world over is 
sullied by any envy, by any personal hatred, by any lust for 
office or by any greed of power; let us strive for our goal 
by every road; let us always raise the standard to which 
the wise and the honest may repair; and we shall then have 
done our dut3\ 

And having done our duty, having kept the faith, we can 
know that the future is ours. If we keep out of view any 
thought of party advantage for that future and keep simply 
in mind our devotion to our ideals and our duty to our 



14 



country, we shall have behind us those forces which make 
success inevitable. 

We know that the present majority is a thing of shreds 
and patches, a blending of discordant and even hostile ele- 
ments. Among those groups are many who are naturally 
of our persuasion and who will inevitably join us if we re- 
main steadfast to that ideal which is as much theirs as ours. 

Not with boasting, not with swaggering, not with brag- 
gadocio can the flag of our country be lifted to the heights 
of world glory where it belongs. A devotion to liberty, a 
passion for justice and a love for peace will not take away 
one jot or tittle of our power, but will make our strength 
beautiful as the morning. 

For we are powerful — we can never forget it — we do not 
want to forget it, but let us remember, too, the words of the 
poet: 

"O, it is excellent 

To have a giant's strength, 
But it is tyrannous 

To use it like a giant." 



[6323] 



Appeal Printing Compaiy, 22 Thames Street, New York City 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



013 982 915 3 



A 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



013 982 915 3 # 



I^AomxIifefl 



